Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <606@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 12:01:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.606
Posted: Fri Aug  2 12:01:26 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:33:59 EDT
References: <389@iham1.UUCP> <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 43

In article <14600031@hpfcrs.UUCP> lief@hpfcla.UUCP (lief) writes:
>>[Me]
>>	Hmmm, these seem to be mostly(or exclusively) highly partisan
>>creationist publications, I would like to see this stuff confirmed in
>>proper refereed journals! I place about as much faith in these finds
>>as I do in the Paluxy River "human footprints" - exactly none!
>>(Actually, the first reference sounds like it is even worse than
>>a creationist publication - a Von-Daenken-esque type pseudo-science
>>book)
>>-- 
>>
>I am sometimes amazed at folks who claim to be scientific and open minded.
>
	Well, as a matter of fact there is a *reason* for making such
a big deal of refereed publications, human subjectivity! The purpose
of these journals is to provide at least a weak check on the tendency
of humans to see what they want to see by checking that there is at
least resonable supporting evidence before publishing something. I do
not restrict this criterion to Creationist writings, I use it regularly,
when I want to know something the *first* place I look is a refereed
journal. I may read Science News, but I take everything in ot with a
large grain of salt! And if the quality of the 116 Reasons Pamphlet is
at all indicative of the quality of unrefereed Creationist publications
then I have good reson to be skeptical, it included some of the most
ridiculous junk I have seen in years! I have also looked at the work
of people like Von Daeniken, they seem to go out of thier way to
explain things according to thier pet theory even when a perfectly
good, standard explanation is available(look at all the things V.D.
claims were made by E.T.s when there is no real reason not to assume
we humans did it!)
	Also, when a Creationist *does* get published in a refereed
journal I take him more seriously. Did you see me reject Dr. Gentry's
Polonium Halos out of hand? That is because he got the data published
in a refereed journal. which suggests to me that he actually has some
real evidence for *something*. I may(and indeed do) disagree with part
of his interpretation of his data, but I treat it with respect as
verifiable results. Quite unlike the stuff I was refering to above!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen